Examples:
- deleted landcover such as the relation 15654963 or the relation 2843847, which reflected perfectly verifiable features, especially from the perspective of a person who lives in this village
- empty ways left after deletion of the landcover such as the way 1157854542 or 223497010

Please stop creating fictional spaces between landuses.I all needs to be repaired and is is not easy. Some land cover have simply been deleted, some non existing spaces created and the data generally regressed.

You have created a lot of fictional spaces between the landuses. Please stope damaging the data.

I have checked almost everyday with osminsoector and now twice with JOSM and it is fine. Even if it was broken, you could have fixed it without separating from other landuses where there is no separation, without regressing tge geometries by making them less accurate and without deleting the landuse of the main village of le Bouveret.

I have just checked and it isn't broken. It is quite normal to have different landuses sharing the same way in a relation, see: "Neighboured ways of landuse-areas share many nodes. To avoid to create two long ways sharing partially the same nodes, describe the areas with multipolygons which collect all outer and inner ways including the way shared by both areas. Because landuse=* is always an area and can therefore only be applied on closed ways, the relation has to wear the landuse-tag." ( osm.wiki/How_to_map_landuse ) Actually, introducing imaginary space between landuses is a regression.

It was not broken. I regularily check the relations on osm inspector and this relation was fine. Regressing geometries, creating non existing spaces between forest and meadows and deleting large village residential areas consists at best in non intentional vandalism.

This changeset massively regressed landuses and separated relations. It should be reverted.

Hi. Just to understand, what kind of error are you correcting?

Well done! Thanks for your reply.

Hi. Why did you delete it if this is simply an issue of no public access? I could have been solved with access=private or access=no

added missing addresses

source: Swiss Image 2024 + GWR from http://qa.poole.ch/addresses/GWR/5404_all.geojson.zip

Bex, buildings according to new imagery (Swiss Image 2024)

Nice! I am happy my images are useful. :-)

I can confirm from local knowledge that it perfectly possible to walk / jog around the lake. I can't say for sure but it is possible that some restrictions apply to vehicles.

Thanks for bringing that up. I haf made a typo and now have corrected it.

What is the Dingerie? Is it really a religious object?

Wrong changeset comment. It should be : Trient, landuses

Thanks for the tip. From now on, I will do just like you for the link in the changeset, it is a good idea. However, when I browse the data in JOSM, I don't see the changeset comment and the source is useful to compare the data with other sources.

La source est sur chaque bâtiment si jamais. Bon week end aussi!